Reducing Gyms

View Poll Results: Should there be 1 or 2 Gyms per type?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • 18 Gyms

    2 8.70%
  • 36 Gyms

    21 91.30%
Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 243
Like Tree186Likes

Thread: Reducing Gyms

  1. #1
    Registered User DarknessRuler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    261
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Reducing Gyms

    This is an official proposal for reducing gyms from 48 total gyms to 18 OR 36. This means 1 or 2 gyms per type. These types include:

    Fire
    Water
    Electric
    Grass
    Ghost
    Dark
    Psychic
    Fighting
    Flying
    Normal
    Rock
    Ground
    Poison
    Steel
    Fairy
    Bug
    Ice
    Dragon

    This proposal is for the removal of the former tradition of regions and League Organizers (LO's) and implementing the URPG Pokemon League with new gyms under "one region" and one League Organizer. I propose no more than 2 gyms per type, which allows for fairness amongst the members, and that will be voted on by the members of the URPG.

    The rules for the URPG League are the same as the traditional gym rules and they are as follows:

    Applying:

    Only Gyms that do not have a leader may be applied for.
    In order to be a Gym Leader, your application be accepted by the appropriate League Organizer.
    If there is more than one application for a Gym, the best will be chosen by the League Organizer.
    Your application must include your AIM name, your anticipated lineup, and the TM of your Gym.
    The Gym TM must be the same type as the Gym, and it must not be used by another Gym.
    Gym Leaders are able to be in possession of a Kanto/Johto/Hoenn/Sinnoh/Unova Gym at the same time as an Orange League Gym.



    The Lineup:

    Gym Leaders must own at least 2 of their Gym Pokemon, which can not be a wild card.
    Gym Leaders must have a lineup of 6 Pokemon, which can include rented Pokemon. If a Gym Leader owns 4 of their Gym Pokemon, he/she can have a lineup of 8 Pokemon, if he/she owns 6, then 10, and if he/she owns 8, then 12.
    Gym Leaders are allowed one Pokemon that isn’t the Gym’s type, although that Pokemon needs to have some sort of relationship to the Gym type. These are called wild cards (WC). It's up to the League Organizer on what an acceptable wildcard is.
    Legendary Pokemon are not allowed in a gym lineup.
    Gym Leaders may change their lineup and are responsible for updating their lineup and other info in the Update a Gym! thread. WCs and not fully evolved Pokemon must be approved by the league organizer before a Gym Leader can use those Pokemon.



    Rentals:

    Pokemon that are rented by Gym Leaders must be kept in their stats. They may be taught moves and their Dream World ability like any other Pokemon they own, but rental Pokemon may only be used while the Gym Leader is defending his/her Gym.
    If a Gym Leader acquires an owned version of a rental Pokemon, he/she may transfer all taught moves and its Dream World ability to the owned version when changing the rental Pokemon in his/her lineup to the owned version.
    If you remove a rental Pokemon any other way, any taught moves and its Dream World ability are lost.
    The Hidden Power type on a rental Pokemon must remain the same, even if you remove it from your lineup and add it again later and teach it a new Hidden Power. Therefore, you must note what Hidden Power type any of your previous rentals had.
    If a rental Pokemon that knows Hidden Power has its moves transferred to an owned version, the owned version must get its own Hidden Power type rolled.



    General Information:

    A Gym Leader must keep all information regarding his/her Gym in his/her stats. This includes his/her lineup, successful challengers of the gym, and the Gym's win and loss record. This information must be kept, even after a Gym Leader no longer owns the gym.
    A Gym Leader is considered to have his/her own Gym Badge, but only while he/she owns it.
    All of a Gym Leader's Pokemon in his/her lineup that are able to learn the Gym TM through TM know it during a Gym Battle if they do not already, but only during a Gym Battle.
    Gym Leaders are able to set the rules of their gym battles, as long as the rule is a legal rule. However, the battle must be higher than 1 VS. 1. If the battle mode involves sending Pokemon and moves in the chat/thread instead of privately, the leader can decide who sends his/her Pokemon first. Some leaders have specific rules they must use.
    There may be periodic roll calls for Gym Leaders. If a Gym Leader does not respond in time, he/she may lose his/her gym.
    If a person feels as though a Gym Leader is doing a bad job as a Gym Leader, and that person feels as though he/she is able to defend that Gym better, he/she may ask the League Organizer of that Gym Leader to challenge that Gym Leader for his/her position. The League Organizer has the right to not allow this sort of challenge if he/she feels the Gym Leader is doing fine or if the challenger is not good enough. If this sort of challenge is allowed, the League Organizer decides the specifics of the challenge, which should involve both players using only that Gym's Pokemon.

    There are multiple gyms of one type as it stands and no one wants to be kicked out of their Gym. I propose that in the event that there are more than 2 gym leaders of one type that those Gym Leaders battle it out for control of their respected types for the URPG League. Battles would be agreed by the Leaders but would consist of a 6 v 6 and will be used with their Gym line-up (Wild cards included). After the battles are over the winners will be the new Gym Leaders. In the event that the numbers are odd then it will be round robin with no more than two loses allowed. The Leaders still stand will take over the new Gyms.

    In order for this proposal to work, a roll call will be needed to see what Leaders are still active and wish to take part in the new League. Roll calls, as part of this proposal, should become more frequent to allow those who want a gym but haven't not been able to obtain one because a Gym has been occupied and but the Leader has been inactive too long for anyone to challenge. A QUICK roll call will be needed monthly and should only last two or three days.

    As the Gym Leaders are being changed and reduced, that also means the League Organizers are reduced to two. Reason for two is so approval is faster than with one and keeping all stats update will occur in a timely manner. The League Organizers will be decided by the staff.

    Everyone wants to be a part of a Gym in some way. Something new for the URPG I would like to implement are Gym Trainers. Gym trainers are allowed to use 3 Pokemon of that Gyms type in battle. Rules will be the rules of the Gym but pay will be 1500 win 750 loss. To go to the Gym Leader, trainers must defeat all the Gym Trainers. If lose to a Gym Trainer occurs, the trainer may challenge the same Gym Trainer without having to start over, same with Gym Leader. Ultimately, if this were to be implemented, it would be the LO and Staffs decision as far as how many Gym Trainers, pay, as well as rules regarding Gym Trainers.

    This is my proposal and is open for discussion from the community at large.

    The stated rules above were provided by Stinky as they were posted by him.

    The poll will be open for 4 days from today.
    Last edited by DarknessRuler; 29th October 2013 at 11:10 PM.
    Synthesis likes this.

    Credit goes to Reader =)


    Stats
    Gym Stats

  2. #2
    URPG Moderator Monbrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,349
    Trophies

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    Overall, I like the concept of restructuring the Gym Leagues based purely on types and not regions, and I'm agreed that if that were to happen, old gym rules would still apply.

    On it's own, what you have is a good proposal. The Gym Trainer's thing is a little iffy though, I'll explain my thoughts on that. Feel free to address my concerns.

    • First of all, this has been discussed before, and decided against every time for a number of reasons. However, SOME of those reasons were based on our current gym system.
    • Current, we really don't have the numbers to fill Gym Leaders and Gym Trainers, even with only one per gym.
    • If Gym Trainers were added, every gym would need to have one. Otherwise, some gyms can be challenged immediately, while others can't. That system becomes unbalanced.
    • The only way to make up the numbers would be to allow people to be both a Gym Leader and a Gym Trainer. However, this can result in the "first hurdle" to a gym being unreasonably high - a top tier battler at the lowest level of competitive play, such as someone like Ash K being both the Leader of his Flying gym, and the Trainer in a Dragon gym. This is generally not the idea behind a Gym Trainer.
    • With 36 gyms in the new system, that's still too many for Gym Trainers.
    • With 18, we could potentially make 36 positions by having one Leader and one Trainer. However, I don't see the benefit of this approach over the "two gyms per type" option.


    The other thing that isn't addressed is the transition between the two systems, which is a major factor in considering if implementation of a new system is viable. We would need to consider:

    • The consequences of removing EVERYONE from their currently held positions.
    • What value the existing badges would hold.
    • We would have effectively no Gym League during the transition period.
    • What the new Elite 4 eligibility requirements would be.
    • If it's two gyms per type, are these gyms equal or tiered?
    • Other miscellaneous stuff like naming conventions/badges for the new gyms.


    Input is more than welcome on this. I just want to make one really big suggestion to help you guys.

    Don't just argue for the good points. By this, I mean "THIS WILL BE AWESOME!" adds a +1 to popularity and is otherwise unhelpful in constructing the idea.

    Instead, argue about ways we can overcome the challenges and drawbacks of a new system/implementing that system. That's a lot more constructive and helps us develop and idea to completion.

  3. #3
    the vibration pokemon Nitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,933
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    EXISTING SYSTEM

    TWO GYMS TO ELITE BATTLERS, DETERMINED BY A SET OF QUALIFICATIONS
    TWO GYMS TO ELITE BATTLERS, DETERMINED BY A SET OF QUALIFICATIONS
    TWO GYMS TO ELITE BATTLERS, DETERMINED BY A SET OF QUALIFICATIONS

    NITRO WINS @STAFFBOARD;
    Fierce Deity likes this.

    I GOT MONEY IN MY BANK ACCOUNT, FUCK A BANK ACCOUNT - SOULJA BOY

    [18:11] [Ranger Alliance]: (webdragoon1337) nitro, you in here?
    [18:11] Nitro: hello
    [18:12] [Ranger Alliance]: (webdragoon1337) knew there was another cool guy in here

    [URPG Chat]
    3:44:43 (silverxchrome) Nitro is attractive. Source: I'm a girl.

  4. #4
    URPG Moderator Monbrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,349
    Trophies

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    EXISTING SYSTEM

    TWO GYMS TO ELITE BATTLERS, DETERMINED BY A SET OF QUALIFICATIONS
    TWO GYMS TO ELITE BATTLERS, DETERMINED BY A SET OF QUALIFICATIONS
    TWO GYMS TO ELITE BATTLERS, DETERMINED BY A SET OF QUALIFICATIONS

    NITRO WINS @STAFFBOARD;
    Not happening.

  5. #5
    Registered User Airik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Medway, Uk
    Posts
    597
    Follow Airik On Twitter Add Airik on Facebook Add Airik on Google+

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    In Regards to existing badges I believe the best option is to give them a equivalent badge in the new system to the ones they currently own (for example a Forest Badge would be Generic Grass Badge, Bolt badge Generic Electric badge.) This way you still have people who do not have all 18 Badges as there is currently no Dark Type gym and Fairy is still in its infancy. I feel this approach restructures the current badge system to the potential new system without diminishing current members achievements.


    The consequences of removing EVERYONE from their currently held positions. - This point is interesting Under the proposal there will now be less gyms especially of Electric and Rock - I picked these two because they are the most populace gym types and are polar opposite in terms of attracting URPG Members - Electric seems very popular where as Rock isn't. Under the proposed system what I expect to happen is that some members will shift to the New Gym Types - I Also expect that with fewer gyms, applications for gyms will be a bit stricter in terms of who gets a gym. (Perhaps an increase in the required pokemon owned) Making the barrier to entry higher (Slightly). Also with Removing everyone from current positions you can re award gyms to the Most active rather than have individuals show up make a post for roll call and then vanish till next time (I can think of a few examples).



  6. #6
    the vibration pokemon Nitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,933
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    why remove gyms lol. no need to cut down on having a lot of gyms to beat unless you consider a shortage of members to be a point of need. even then, there are better ways to go around that problem.

    also proposals usually come with reasons to support them, not just more or less the same gym system rules c/p'd in the thread. this thread so far is pretty pointless..

    I GOT MONEY IN MY BANK ACCOUNT, FUCK A BANK ACCOUNT - SOULJA BOY

    [18:11] [Ranger Alliance]: (webdragoon1337) nitro, you in here?
    [18:11] Nitro: hello
    [18:12] [Ranger Alliance]: (webdragoon1337) knew there was another cool guy in here

    [URPG Chat]
    3:44:43 (silverxchrome) Nitro is attractive. Source: I'm a girl.

  7. #7
    Registered User Airik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Medway, Uk
    Posts
    597
    Follow Airik On Twitter Add Airik on Facebook Add Airik on Google+

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    EXISTING SYSTEM

    TWO GYMS TO ELITE BATTLERS, DETERMINED BY A SET OF QUALIFICATIONS
    TWO GYMS TO ELITE BATTLERS, DETERMINED BY A SET OF QUALIFICATIONS
    TWO GYMS TO ELITE BATTLERS, DETERMINED BY A SET OF QUALIFICATIONS

    NITRO WINS @STAFFBOARD;
    on the subject of pointless - HI NITRO vaugley referencing something from the staff forum in an unrelated thread about an idea that was already ignored as its mostly self serving is not entirely Pointless itself is it :D



  8. #8
    Registered User DarknessRuler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    261
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    Quote Originally Posted by Monbrey View Post
    Overall, I like the concept of restructuring the Gym Leagues based purely on types and not regions, and I'm agreed that if that were to happen, old gym rules would still apply.

    On it's own, what you have is a good proposal. The Gym Trainer's thing is a little iffy though, I'll explain my thoughts on that. Feel free to address my concerns.

    • First of all, this has been discussed before, and decided against every time for a number of reasons. However, SOME of those reasons were based on our current gym system.
    • Current, we really don't have the numbers to fill Gym Leaders and Gym Trainers, even with only one per gym.
    • If Gym Trainers were added, every gym would need to have one. Otherwise, some gyms can be challenged immediately, while others can't. That system becomes unbalanced.
    • The only way to make up the numbers would be to allow people to be both a Gym Leader and a Gym Trainer. However, this can result in the "first hurdle" to a gym being unreasonably high - a top tier battler at the lowest level of competitive play, such as someone like Ash K being both the Leader of his Flying gym, and the Trainer in a Dragon gym. This is generally not the idea behind a Gym Trainer.
    • With 36 gyms in the new system, that's still too many for Gym Trainers.
    • With 18, we could potentially make 36 positions by having one Leader and one Trainer. However, I don't see the benefit of this approach over the "two gyms per type" option.


    The other thing that isn't addressed is the transition between the two systems, which is a major factor in considering if implementation of a new system is viable. We would need to consider:

    • The consequences of removing EVERYONE from their currently held positions.
    • What value the existing badges would hold.
    • We would have effectively no Gym League during the transition period.
    • What the new Elite 4 eligibility requirements would be.
    • If it's two gyms per type, are these gyms equal or tiered?
    • Other miscellaneous stuff like naming conventions/badges for the new gyms.


    Input is more than welcome on this. I just want to make one really big suggestion to help you guys.

    Don't just argue for the good points. By this, I mean "THIS WILL BE AWESOME!" adds a +1 to popularity and is otherwise unhelpful in constructing the idea.

    Instead, argue about ways we can overcome the challenges and drawbacks of a new system/implementing that system. That's a lot more constructive and helps us develop and idea to completion.
    The mention of gym trainers was a mere suggestion, just like a new Gym League, and was a simple way to give a small position to someone. It's more for something to be rediscussed in the future.

    Last night you kept mentioning 2 Gyms per type and I know that's where you stand but if we have issues filling our gyms now and we have people that aren't on as often enough to challenge, why have a 2 per type system? Yes making Gym Trainers will be a no go for a long while but trying to fill a 36 Gym system will be no different than what we have now.

    Yes there will be consequences for removing people from their Gyms. As many of us older members know for every action there is a positive or negative reaction. That's why I insisted a roll call be done first to see what Gym Leaders are still active. That's why in the event that more than 2 Gym Leaders of a type battle it out for a Gym in the new system. It's a new system and people can't just have things handed to them while someone else who has worked just as hard to get their Gym where it is (whether a good record or bad one) should be taken away from what they worked for. You can't make everyone happy. But why not making majority happy and deal with the little amount that is not?

    As far as the old badges go, we can trade them in for money or maybe after so many a free EM or maybe if someone has X amount they can get a knew Pokemon. There are many options but that is something that should be left to the staff to decide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    why remove gyms lol. no need to cut down on having a lot of gyms to beat unless you consider a shortage of members to be a point of need. even then, there are better ways to go around that problem.

    also proposals usually come with reasons to support them, not just more or less the same gym system rules c/p'd in the thread. this thread so far is pretty pointless..
    Gee, thanks Nitro. The reason for the proposal is because of the open Gyms and lack of activity in the League. There's barely any Gym battles anymore because of this. The purpose of this is to try and reduce the Gym count while raising activity and to see more challenges rather than waiting for someone to take an open gym.

    As the rules that were copied and pasted (yes I copied and pasted them) they are a guideline. Everything in this world starts with a guideline and then is tweaked. Businesses take another businesses rules and policy, tweak them and call them their own every day. The URPG is no different, with the except of the fact that the URPG does not produce actual money.

    Instead of blasting the concept and going for the low blows, why not be constructive and make an actual point as to why this would be pointless.

    Credit goes to Reader =)


    Stats
    Gym Stats

  9. #9
    URPG Moderator Monbrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,349
    Trophies

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    Quote Originally Posted by DarknessRuler View Post
    Last night you kept mentioning 2 Gyms per type and I know that's where you stand but if we have issues filling our gyms now and we have people that aren't on as often enough to challenge, why have a 2 per type system? Yes making Gym Trainers will be a no go for a long while but trying to fill a 36 Gym system will be no different than what we have now.
    I stand by two gyms per type because I feel that only having 18 gyms, one of each type, is a little too restrictive. While it does make for a very nice League where all Gym Leaders could be seen as "The best battler with X type of Pokemon", it provides little to no opportunity for other people to become Gym Leaders. Although I know it's possible to challenge and become a Gym Leader, they are few and far between as it is. The best way to learn a type is to defend with it.

    Good for solution for people challenging a League. Not a great option for people who want to be Gym Leaders.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarknessRuler View Post
    Yes there will be consequences for removing people from their Gyms. As many of us older members know for every action there is a positive or negative reaction. That's why I insisted a roll call be done first to see what Gym Leaders are still active. That's why in the event that more than 2 Gym Leaders of a type battle it out for a Gym in the new system. It's a new system and people can't just have things handed to them while someone else who has worked just as hard to get their Gym where it is (whether a good record or bad one) should be taken away from what they worked for. You can't make everyone happy. But why not making majority happy and deal with the little amount that is not?
    I see your point, but who exactly is the majority here? In most of these situations in the past, there's been a small number of people who are struggling to get a couple of badges due to inactivity, and a much larger number of people who don't mind at all, and are just enjoying defending their type. If that turns out to be different this time, then this is worth considering.

    Making multiple people battle for a gym is a very messy thing. I used to make people do it for lulz, but it rarely works out as simply as you'd think. But there aren't

    Quote Originally Posted by DarknessRuler View Post
    As far as the old badges go, we can trade them in for money or maybe after so many a free EM or maybe if someone has X amount they can get a knew Pokemon. There are many options but that is something that should be left to the staff to decide.
    Not a fan of them being "traded in". Most people will want to keep them as a symbol of how well they did under the previous system.

  10. #10
    Registered User DarknessRuler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    261
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    Here's the problem with this:

    In reality both make for a great solution. However, I feel as though there is something that you're not seeing and that is the fact that there are 2 Rock Gyms, 2 Ice Gyms, a Normal, Poison and Ice that are unoccupied. You want to give everyone a chance to become a Gym Leader by starting a 2 Gym per type system, yet gyms are open and there's those that hold a gym aren't always active. So how can you honestly hope for every Gym to be filled when we can't fill Gyms with this current system?

    Battling for Gyms is in fact the most simplest way in either a 1 Gym or 2 Gym system. You COULD go off of records but then again that could also cause issues. Let's say there are 3 Electric Leaders. Two of them have been Leaders for roughly the same time with a slightly different record. The third is semi new to the gym with a couple of defends. Who do you kick out? Do you go off the record and be unfair to the 3rd Leader who has been trying to work hard on Eming his Gym and trying to obtain ownership of his rentals? Or do you chose between the 2 other Leaders who have been doing very well at defending their gym? The community is behind a new League we all see that. However, trying to come up with a fair alternative to how distribute the Gyms. Another choice would be to allow everyone to re-apply and the chosen LO would chose the Leaders when more than 2 apply for the same Gym.

    Trading in was a thought. Personally, and this is just me, I don't see a need to keep em on stats. Out with the old, in with the new right? But like I said, it was a thought and was something brought up by Airik which I agree with.

    Credit goes to Reader =)


    Stats
    Gym Stats

  11. #11
    ._. Synthesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    8,122
    Blog Entries
    226

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    Trading badges in isn't really a great idea imo. It seems better to just give the water badge out to the people who have beaten a any water gym or perhaps all of the water gyms. It's kind of unfair to make everyone essentially have to start again, I think.

    Also, I think if it does happen that everyone loses their gyms and everyone must re-apply, preference for gyms should be based almost solely on activity. If it comes down to multiple people, award the most active the gym, or if equally active, then the better app imo. Rolecalls don't really work as can be seen from people who still have gyms despite being inactive for months. Last minute gym reclaims are not cool if you aren't active.

    As for e4 requirement, I stand by my suggestion of one badge of each type. Perhaps it could be one badge of each type or maybe 25-30 badges in total or something. That would leave people already allegible for e4 in a situation where they don't have to recollect them all unless they want to.

  12. #12
    ._. Synthesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    8,122
    Blog Entries
    226

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    Trading badges in isn't really a great idea imo. It seems better to just give the water badge out to the people who have beaten a any water gym or perhaps all of the water gyms. It's kind of unfair to make everyone essentially have to start again, I think.

    Also, I think if it does happen that everyone loses their gyms and everyone must re-apply, preference for gyms should be based almost solely on activity. If it comes down to multiple people, award the most active the gym, or if equally active, then the better app imo. Rolecalls don't really work as can be seen from people who still have gyms despite being inactive for months. Last minute gym reclaims are not cool if you aren't active.

    As for e4 requirement, I stand by my suggestion of one badge of each type. Perhaps it could be one badge of each type or maybe 25-30 badges in total or something. That would leave people already allegible for e4 in a situation where they don't have to recollect them all unless they want to.

  13. #13
    Registered User DarknessRuler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    261
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    Quote Originally Posted by Synthesis View Post
    Trading badges in isn't really a great idea imo. It seems better to just give the water badge out to the people who have beaten a any water gym or perhaps all of the water gyms. It's kind of unfair to make everyone essentially have to start again, I think.

    Also, I think if it does happen that everyone loses their gyms and everyone must re-apply, preference for gyms should be based almost solely on activity. If it comes down to multiple people, award the most active the gym, or if equally active, then the better app imo. Rolecalls don't really work as can be seen from people who still have gyms despite being inactive for months. Last minute gym reclaims are not cool if you aren't active.

    As for e4 requirement, I stand by my suggestion of one badge of each type. Perhaps it could be one badge of each type or maybe 25-30 badges in total or something. That would leave people already allegible for e4 in a situation where they don't have to recollect them all unless they want to.
    I honestly don't think giving people badges for the new system from the old is the best idea. Many badges may have been earned years ago from a different Leader. Since Leaders do change here and there, it would be more beneficial to re-earn badges, especially if a current Gym Leader is no longer a Gym Leader. A new system means new badges which should force a restart. I understand it's a pain but it would be fair to give everyone a fresh start.

    E4 requirements should be more than one badge per type. The Elite 4 is just that, meant for the elite trainers who have proven their worth by defeating all the Gyms. I know the Gym number is large but again, it's fair and sticks to the "traditional" regional rules that we've following for many years.

    Credit goes to Reader =)


    Stats
    Gym Stats

  14. #14
    Registered User Elamite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,067
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    Ok. Well, the reasoning for this can be as simple as: If we add 8 more gyms, we probably aren't going to get 8 new leaders. We're probably going to get 7 current leaders leave their gyms and take a new one, and maybe some of those gyms will be filled by someone else. Adding more gyms and going on with the current tradition is just going to make the problem worse. That's why this is an issue now.

    I don't know that one or two gyms of each type is necessarily the most elegant way to do it, but I'm fine with if nothing better is suggested because it's simple. Personally, it irks me that people are saying that one gym of each type will make it too difficult for people to get gyms. Can we all imagine for a second that we're playing the URPG when it first started? Imagine we're in GSC days. Guess how many gyms there were? 16. I know the URPG was different back then, but the point stands that the way the URPG started was with fewer gyms than we're proposing anyway.

    I don't really know why the mindset of gyms is that it is a place for the leader to learn. I think that is just a tradition that sprung out of concepts like the Dojo League and also the fact that we always had open gyms for people to pickup and learn. However, I don't think this is the right mentality at all. Let's follow the games on this one (since people love to do that): Gyms are supposed to test the battling skill of the battler to ensure they are able to move on with their adventure. I'm going to focus more on the first point. Gyms serve the purpose of being tests to see the battlers skill, NOT see how well the gym leader has grown. The leaders should be the elite, there should be a pride associated with running a gym, not just something anyone can do. The people that should be learning in gym battles are the people challenging them.

    Now, if the staff wanted to run something like a Dojo league to allow people without a gym to try having one, that would be a perfect time for people to learn their skill with certain types.

    For the battling section, the end goal is becoming the champion. The process of getting there shouldn't be a joke. You want another reason this needs to be done? As it is, right now, there is only 1 complete league. Out of the 5 we have, just 1. What's the point of having all of these leagues if you can't even complete them? It's physically impossible to get all of the Hoenn bagdes, not because the gym leaders are hard, but because there hasn't been a full league in months. If the gyms are just going to be placeholders for people to boast their egos and "learn" I don't see the point. That's not what a gym is for.

    My personal opinion on transitioning current badges into the new system is to just cut all badges and grant access to challenge the e4 to all members who had the access before. It's a new system because the current one is bad. This implementation probably harms me almost the most (13 badges but no e4 credentials), but I don't feel as though I earned many of my badges because of how easy a lot of the battles were. I'm pretty sure for about 10 of those badges I ran a simple team of Politoed and some rain abusers and rarely had trouble.

    Choosing the gym leaders between applicants should be done by a council of the LOs where some discussion occurs. A sudden-death battle is not really the same at all as defending a gym. Many people don't have strategies in their gym lineups for defending against Pokemon of the same type because that never happens. No one ever sends Accelgor against me in my gym, so why should I be tested on my ability to handle that situation? Maybe something that could be done if the council can't decide is have both applicants battle a third party person and the LOs study how well they perform in a gym battle scenario, since that is what they're trying to find. Also, this will make it more obvious who is more active because they'll complete their battle quicker!!

    btw, gym trainers is so messy. I don't like it at all and don't think it's necessary for the following reasons:
    -People are inactive, making it hard to just challenge x2
    -People always leave their positions and would make even more awkward gaps x2
    -People dodge battles they think they can't win x2
    -If we want people to "learn" hold a dojo league, it's more fun for all

    Everything else I didn't address, is in my opinion, a petty detail that can be worked out once the staff decides whether or not this could actually be done or not.
    Last edited by Elamite; 30th October 2013 at 01:02 PM.

    URPG

  15. #15
    Registered User Airik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Medway, Uk
    Posts
    597
    Follow Airik On Twitter Add Airik on Facebook Add Airik on Google+

    Default Re: Reducing Gyms

    I mostly agree with everything smores says i dont care if its 1 of each type or 2 but it needs to change the current system isnt working and needs to be fixed or replaced. I'm also not going to be ragey if Sky Lark or Towel are decided as better gym leader than me (personally i feel out of the three people towel is the stronger of us) - he was considering applying for the new gen 6 grass gym i assume him applying is still a possibility. I think if your doing away with the old e4 requirements that everyone should lose the option of challenging and start again just feel thats fair and i myself have 18 gym Badges and no e4 credentials so im close but not there yet i dont think the dedicated few who want to beat the champ will have an issue with getting there if they wanted to.

    As for some badges just being a walkover - yeah i kinda agree i took my gym within a month of being in urpg and gave away a significant amount of easy wins back in the early days and i wasn't ready to face the skill level of the people who wanted to challenge me. Currently the system we have encourages us to flock and swamp the noob gym leaders to get easy victories by facing inexperienced leaders either because the gyms been inactive or vacant for an age or because the previous gym holder was a tough opponent and the new one is a nub i can crush like bug under the heel of my superior russian communist boot. I do think that there should be more of a challenge around facing gyms

    Traditions are good Unless the tradition is to throw yourself off a bridge then thats dumb because the current system is driving urpg into the ground



Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •